Watch Apollo Zero and Kubrick's Odyssey!

That is the same Jay Weidner who claims that the Apollo missions really happened, they just got a bit of help from Kubrick for the visuals?

Is that your opinion?

How much stock do you think we put in anonymous gushing reviews? Do you really think your viewers are so dumb as to think it was written by anyone except Weidner himself?

I've attempted a number of times to contact Jay Weidner to discuss his illegal use of the graphics from my web site. Naturally he won't answer, but it does handily prove that he's been to my site. And that proof allows me to say that he vastly disrespects both the facts and the debate itself.

A great deal of the tripe he spewed on his own site had already been debunked on the pages from which he stole my original graphics. If he can't bother to deal with the refutations that are already on the table, I don't see why anyone should follow Weidner farther into his fantasy world. He'll just keep ignoring what doesn't fit his belief, just as he's done so far.

Weidner can dance and spin all he wants, but the facts remain that the Apollo missions are considered uncontested fact among the relevant qualified scientists, engineers, and historians. There is simply no controversy among the adequately educated. And they even know the answer to his monkey question -- I go into it at length on my web site. But Weidner sticks his fingers in his ears and sings "la la la la" so he doesn't have to hear it.

And since he can't make any sort of credible factual case, he has to wave his hands about the supposed "psychology" of me and my colleagues in the professional aerospace community. He has the audacity to say he knows what we're really thinking. There can be no weaker argument than to suppose that your critics and opponents secretly agree with you and would support you but for the influence of nefarious forces. The simpler explanation is that the untrained, inexperienced, misinformed and attention-seeking Jay Weidner is wrong, and that two generations of the world's professional aerospace industry are right.

There isn't much to say about his approach to Kubrick. It would bear more comment if we didn't know exactly where and when the Kubrick rumor started. It was a joke posted to the Internet, and the hoax theorists -- who seem to have no sense of humor -- stripped off the punchline (that Kubrick was dissatisfied with the studio work and chose to shoot the Moon landing hoax on location on the lunar surface) and wrote the Kubrick chapter of their fantasy tale.

I'm not sure what proof value Weidner thinks there is in deconstructing a dead man's work according to his own biases and preconceptions. People have been reading "secret messages" into novels, films, poetry, clouds, photographs, paintings, and tea leaves for centuries. I can't speak for other viewers, but I don't give a tinker's dam for what Weidner thinks he can read into one of Kubrick's films. I want to know what process Weidner used to test whether that was actually Stanley Kubrick's intent.

With references to the "rabbit hole" it's clear that Weidner's intent is to shock and titillate, not so much to inform. Predictably his arguments shy away from verifiable fact and aim instead at innuendo and inference. Yes, it may be shocking -- but is it correct?